Michael Koch wrote: >On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:49:42PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote: > > >>Michael Koch wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:28:10PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>- Sable has a large and active community >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>In the last time the project seems to be very inactive except some mails >>>on the lists. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Not true. They just like to keep it low volume for some reason (which I >>admittedly don't like much). Check again. >> >>Anyways, even a community of 2 is better than the JamVM community... >> >> > >When speaking to them on IRC they always say they have no time for >sablevm currently ... > >I would call this inactive. > > They just say that. They mean something else. The project is huge and has momentum. > > >>>>- Sable is LGPL. GPL does not work for maemo. Read why at >>>>http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>That is only the opinion of the SableVM people. Neither GNU classpath >>>poeple nor FSF considers this to be correct. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>So why do they still think so after such a long time? What would you say? >> >>What's the heuristic then? >> >> > >I dont know why but there is some dispute between sablevm and the rest >of the classpath community since a longer time. I dont really know why >and I would really like to get this solved. But I guess this will never >happen. > > > How about Nokia money as a solver? :-) >>If you link native to a GPL VM, then that code must also be GPL, no? >>That is an absolute requirement in the embedded world... >> >> > >That is true. But running java bytecode in with a GPL vm and loading JNI >libs during that doenst render all the java/native code you run with the >VM to GPL. > > and this context does not apply to CLDC... > >Cheers, >Michael > >
